Tuesday, February 23, 2021

Justin Martyr – “one of the most enigmatic passages in 1 Apol.”

My last thread focused on Justin Martyr’s Christological passages that emphasized the Son's causality and numerical distinction from the Father. This post will delve into a single chapter from Justin’s extant writings that has been termed by Leslie William Barnard as, “one of the most enigmatic passages in 1 Apol.(The First and Second ApologiesAncient Christian Writers, 56.110). Barnard’s English translation of the entire chapter is reproduced below, followed by Blunt’s Greek text:

Hence we are called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists with reference to gods such as these [i.e. the demons worshipped by the Greeks], but not with reference to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is unmixed with evil. But we worship and adore both Him and the Son who came from Him, and taught us these things, and the army of the other good angels,[36] who follow Him and are made like Him, and the prophetic Spirit, giving honor [to Him] in reason and truth; and to everyone who wishes to learn handing over without grudging, what we have been taught. (Leslie William Barnard, The First Apology, ch. 6 – Ancient Christian Writers, 56.26)

6. 1. Ἔνθεν δὲ καὶ ἄθεοι κεκλήμεθα· καὶ ὁμολογοῦμεν τῶν τοιούτων νομιζομένων θεῶν ἄθεοι εἶναι, ἀλλ' οὐχὶ τοῦ ἀληθεστάτου καὶ πατρὸς δικαιοσύνης καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν ἀνεπιμίκτου τε κακίας θεοῦ· 2. ἀλλ' ἐκεῖνόν τε καὶ τὸν παρ' αὐτοῦ υἱὸν ἐλθόντα καὶ διδάξαντα ἡμᾶς ταῦτα, καὶ τὸν τῶν ἄλλων ἑπομένων καὶ ἐξομοιουμένων ἀγαθῶν ἀγγέλων στρατόν, πνεῦμά τε τὸ προφητικὸν σεβόμεθα καὶ προ σκυνοῦμεν, λόγῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ τιμῶντες, καὶ παντὶ βουλομένῳ μαθεῖν, ὡς ἐδιδάχθημεν, ἀφθόνως παραδιδόντες. (A.W.F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, pp. 9, 10)


From Barnard’s note #36 on chapter 6, we read:

This is one of the most enigmatic passages in 1 Apol. Attempts have been made to avoid the sudden and embarrassing introduction of angels before the prophetic Spirit. Thus straton has been taken as the object of didaxanta, either parallel to hēmas, i.e., “and taught us and taught the army of the good angels,” or parallel to tauta, i.e., “and taught us these things and [belief in] the army of good angels.” Both of these are unconvincing and are strained interpretations of the text. Straton has also been emended to stratēgon, so as to refer to Christ as the Head of the angels. See Otto’s note (Otto, 21-23). If, however, the text is taken as stands, worship and adoration, in a liturgical context, are addressed to God the Father of Righteousness, the Son who came from Him, the army of the good angels, and the prophetic Spirit. Justin closely connects the good angels with Jesus as the messengers of God who would accompany Him in His glory at the last day. In a remarkable passage in Dial. 128 he states that, as the logos has a separate, permanent existence from the Father, so there are angels who have a permanent existence…So here Justin does not withhold worship and adoration from the good angels who, like Jesus, have a permanent existence. (Ibid. p. 110)

Enigmatic indeed! Now, Barnard is not the only scholar to point out the attempts by a number of interpreters/translators “to avoid the sudden and embarrassing introduction of angels before the prophetic Spirit.” Back in 1831, the Anglican patristic scholar Edward Burton, devoted eight pages of his Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Doctrine of the Trinity (pp. 15-23 – link to PDF) to the enigmatic chapter 6. He begins this section of the book with:

I must depart from my usual plan of giving a translation of the passage, and adding the original in a note: for the Greek words have been cited with such opposite views, and translated in so many different ways, that it is absolutely necessary to lay them in the first instance before the reader.

He then goes on to mention the interpretations of Bellermin, Prudentius Maranus, Scultetus, Bull, Stephen Le Moyne, Le Nourry, Grabe, Cave, Langus, Dr. Ashton, Lowe, Dr. Milner, and ‘the bishop of Lincoln’ [John Kaye].

Interestingly enough, some of interpretations proposed by a number of the Protestant authors included in Burton’s list had a clear apologetic bias behind them. It seems they wanted to avoid any notion of honor/worship being given to the ‘good angels’ because, “Roman catholic writers have quoted them as supporting the worship of angels” (p. 16). As for Burton’s own interpretation, given the length, I think it is best that one read it for themselves.

In ending, the passage remains an enigma to me, requiring a good deal more study on my part before I attempt to adopt an interpretation. With that said, I would appreciate to hear from any folk who may have reached some sort of conclusion concerning what Justin was trying to convey.


Grace and peace,

David

15 comments:

leeseykay said...

Has anybody considered that the uninspired St. Justin was tired and would have re-arranged the order if he had noticed. Maybe it was an accident of his own or a copyist. I have occasionally caught myself invoking other saints before the Blessed Virgin, accidentally.

Do any other texts of St. Justin also make us think that he would have placed the Holy Spirit in a position behind an angel? Do we have other texts that show that he denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit? I suspect not, else this would not be considered enigmatic. If we knew that Justin made such an error the Church would have in that event, acknowledged his services to the Catholic Church. There would be hope for his salvation instead of infallible assurance, and as with Origen, we wouldn't be calling him St.


Rory

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Forgive my somewhat tardy response, but this beachbum has been quite busy of late (emails, phone calls and some unexpected travel). You wrote:

==Has anybody considered that the uninspired St. Justin was tired and would have re-arranged the order if he had noticed. Maybe it was an accident of his own or a copyist==

To my knowledge, you are the first to suggest this. It is certainly possible, but given the absence of any textual variants that might support such a theory, I suspect it will not find a lot of support.

==Do any other texts of St. Justin also make us think that he would have placed the Holy Spirit in a position behind an angel?==

No.

==Do we have other texts that show that he denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit?==

No. If one begins with a divine vs. created distinction, it seems clear that Justin placed the Holy Spirit on the divine side.

Before ending, I would like to mention a triadic text—which excludes the Holy Spirit—that is certainly prior to the writings of Justin; note the following:

“I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.” (1 Tim. 5:21)


Grace and peace,

David

Dennis said...

Hi David,

Reading that text (without knowing Greek), it seems the part, "and taught us these things, and the army of the other good angels,[36] who follow Him and are made like Him", is an insertion that should be bracketed.

That way He teaches humans & angels true worship and His Spirit assists us giving Him honour.

I dont see the problem.

Also in your last post you quoted John Behr saying Justin Martyr posed a lesser Divinity. However, the Dialogue with Trypho ch128 states that Divine essence remains the same between Father & Son.

Since God exists in relation with Himself beyond being, He generates His Son as a blueprint of relations in humanity. A son as a human is subordinate to the father and maybe pre-creation He is subordinate in function in some way as Jesus was on earth by wilfully limiting Himself by obedience.

Cheers
Dennis

David Waltz said...

Hi Dennis,

It is great to see our Australian brother back. The parenthetical reading you suggested is possible, and has been put forward by some older interpreters (see the link to Burton’s Testimonies provided in the opening post).

But, the more ‘natural’ reading would limit the parenthesis to “and taught us these things”, which theme is picked up again with, “and to everyone who wishes to learn handing over without grudging, what we have been taught”.


Grace and peace,

David

Dennis said...

Hi David,

Thanks for the warm welcome mate ��

Id say if in the rest of Justin's work he doesnt mention worshipping angels, then you'd have to read the text in the manner Burton suggested.

I actually named my son after this guy...he's got something to live up to now. Not many coherent defenders of the faith left these days of universal disunity.

Cheers
Dennis

David Waltz said...

Hello again Dennis,

Even though a bit dated, Burton’s Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Doctrine of the Trinity is still extremely useful (IMO). Two years prior, he had published another great book:

Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ

Hope you are able to check it out.

At the end of your post, you wrote:

==Not many coherent defenders of the faith left these days of universal disunity.==

Do you think that one could add we are also living in the days of an almost ‘universal apostasy’?


Grace and peace,

David

Dennis said...

Hey David,

My smiley face didnt publish last time •¿•
\_/
Yes. I think Jesus words,"as in the times of Noah..." sums it up. I think the churches mirror the time of the Judges in the OT. Too much evil and no one knows whats going on. I dont know if the 120 years of Noahs time is just that or if grotesque evil was in the world a lot longer. Reading history outside of Israel, there was a lot of evil as well.

I think the "mark of the beast" has been around a long time where people are driven by greed & gain in their daily activities "on the hand" & it is what drives their thoughts "on the forehead". Unfortunately a lot of the church accomodates to all of this.

Cheers
Dennis

Errol Amey said...

Greetings David,

I was curious as to what your thoughts are on the interpretation of this passage proposed by Bogdan Bucur, as per the source we brought up in your previous blog entry. Do you suppose, after reflection, that it's too much of a stretch, or that it plausibly reflects what Justin's thoughts on the matter may truly have been?

David Waltz said...

Hi Errol,

Good to see you back. You asked the following concerning Bucur’s interpretation of the passage from Justin that is the topic of this thread:

==Do you suppose, after reflection, that it's too much of a stretch, or that it plausibly reflects what Justin's thoughts on the matter may truly have been==

I have not reached a definition answer yet. My initial reaction was that “it’s too much of a stretch”; but subsequent study has softened my stance a bit, such that I can currently say it may be ‘plausible’.

With that said, I am wondering if you have reached a conclusion yet—if so, could you let me know what that conclusion is?

I would also like to know if you have read the Fleeson master’s thesis that was referenced by Bucur? The following is from his section on Justin:

>>Justin even includes the angels among those worthy of worship, besides the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Justin, Apol. 1.6). In listing the angels among those worthy of worship, Justin either claims that the angels are divine as well, or he associates the angels (or some of the angels) with the person of Christ and the Holy Spirit. For example, if the Holy Spirit took angelic form, Justin may attribute that angel with God and as worthy of worship.>> (The Fall of Angelomorphic Pneumatology - p.29)


Grace and peace.

David

David Waltz said...

Ooops...just now noticed a typo from my last night comment: 'definition' should read 'definitive'.

Errol Amey said...

David,

As you know, no small amount of ink has been spilled over this issue by those who are more knowledgeable than myself. Therefore I am reduced to only hazarding a relatively ignorant assessment. With that in mind, there will always be a temptation to take Justin's words on this at face value. However, given that he's only making a passing reference as opposed to giving the matter any elucidation either here or elsewhere, I'm inclined to resist that temptation pending further study. I think that Bucur is at the very least on the right track with looking to other early Christian sources in order to shed some light on the matter; an approach which I typically take in such instances. What we're lookin for in that case are those who are close to Justin either chronologically, geographically, or preferably both.

When it comes to chronology, Justin unfortunately writes from something of a lacuna in the history of patristic writ. Between the New Testament and sub-Apostolic writers we have a decent witness of the mid 1st through early 2nd centuries; the generation of Apologists, with the exception of Justin himself, give us many witnesses to the late 2nd century; the mid 2nd century is, by comparison, rather quiet with the extant writings at our disposal. Hermas at this time would produce his redacted and greatly expanded The Sheppard, which Bucur does discuss in Angelomorphic Pneumatology.

As for the geography, Justin spent his time as a catechumen in Falvia Neapolis, then moved to Rome. This presents a number of potential scenarios regarding the tradition upon which his statement would have been based. His views on the matter could have been common to the traditions in both regions. Or, it may be something which he learned in his catechetical stage and which he retained despite a contrary tradition in Rome (which I doubt given that patristic scholars place some twenty years between his move to Rome and the composition of his First Apology). Alternately, it may have been a subject on which he didn't gain familiarity until becoming exposed to the tradition in Rome. Finally, as some patristic scholars have hypothesized, it could be Justin's own synthesis of Christian theology with Platonic philosophy. Clement of Rome's letter didn't occasion any discussion of this issue. Clement of Alexandria, however, is Bucur's star witness. This raises the question, how pervasive was the Alexandrian tradition in the area surrounding Jerusalem?

David Waltz said...

Hi Errol,

I greatly appreciated the summation you provided in your last comment. You wrote:

==…there will always be a temptation to take Justin's words on this at face value. However, given that he's only making a passing reference as opposed to giving the matter any elucidation either here or elsewhere, I'm inclined to resist that temptation pending further study.==

I am less inclined; as such, I spend a lot of time making sure that I am using the most reliable texts of Justin’s extant corpus, and then try to determine the best translation of said texts.

==I think that Bucur is at the very least on the right track with looking to other early Christian sources in order to shed some light on the matter…==

Certainly that is important; but ultimately for me, I try to discern if it is Scripture that provides the primary basis for Justin’s doctrinal formulations—implicitly and/or explicitly. One passage that gets little attention is from Paul’s first epistle to Timothy:

I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. (1 Tim. 5:21)

Why the ‘elect angels’ and not the Holy Spirit?

Another passage that may have important implications for understanding Justin is also from Paul:

Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2 Cor. 3:17, 18)

Bucur references, “Erwin R. Goodenough’s observation, that ‘there is no doctrine of Justin more baffling than his doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and no doctrine which has been more differently understood’”.

I know from my reading of numerous commentaries that the above passage from Paul has ‘baffled’ many, resulting in ‘different understandings’.

Paul, like Justin, terms Jesus Christ as, “the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” (See 1 Cor. 1:24)

Anyway, I am not trying to discount Bucur’s studies; I only want to make sure that one does not under-emphasize the role Scripture played in Justin’s theological thought.


Grace and peace,

David

Errol Amey said...

David,

This raises the question, in my mind, at least, as to how the early Christians in general treated 1 Timothy 5:21. I imagine that you've been down this road as well? If so, unless I've missed something (which is certainly possible), there isn't much in the way of elucidation on this, either, within extant patristic writ. Direct commentaries on the verse are few and far between, and those which I was able to find only discussed how we are to, "observe these things without preferring one before another," as opposed to the significance of Paul's mention of, "the elect angels," with the following being the only notable exception:

"Why, then, does God tell you that he is going to indict you? 'If you will hear me, there will not be in you a recent god.' Let us see first how God indicts; accordingly, what he says: he speaks with witnesses and calls witnesses; this time he calls heaven and earth; [cf. Deuteronomy 4:26; 30:19; 32:1] this time he even calls a song; [cf. Deuteronomy 31:19; 31:21] this time he calls a hearing stone. 'For this stone,' it says, 'I bring an indictment before God and Jesus Christ and the chosen angels, that you keep these things without prejudice.' [1 Timothy 5:21] Do you see? Christ also, in Paul, has brought an indictment before the chosen angels, before God, and, to be sure, before Christ Jesus, as Paul brings an indictment. These indictments, then, will last until the day of judgment, in the mouth of two witnesses [cf. Deuteronomy 19:15; 2 Corinthians 13:1] or three or more, so that those who sin may be condemned; therefore, they are witnesses in the day of judgment; if the sinner is to be lost, the creations are witnesses; heaven witnesses against the one lost; the earth, the angels witness against the one who has done evil. . . .
"When it comes to things we do, in case other human beings are unaware of them, human beings are not going to come and condemn us. Everywhere is full of angels; every household and every land is full of the powers of God. Where is Christ not present? 'He stood in the midst of you.' [John 1:26] If any sin, say to them, 'What you do not know is that God is everywhere.'" Etc.
(Origen, ca. 251, Homilies on Psalm 80 2:2, in Fathers of the Church 141:427-428)

Naturally we needn't assume that Justin and Origen would necessary have the same interpretation of the verse in question (or that the latter limited himself to the above understanding, given his three-fold approach to interpreting the Scriptures), but Origen here merely gives this as the angels simply being additional witnesses against wickedness as opposed to equating them to the members of the Trinity on an ontological level or as receiving our worship. That Origen refers to these angels as, "the powers of God," actually seems reminiscent of Bucur's premise. Thus, I am still at a loss as to Justin's own thoughts on the matter.

David Waltz said...

Hi Errol,

Thanks much for your last post. I have yet to obtain the 141st volume of CUAP’s FC series yet, so I was totally unaware of the quote you provided.

I am aware of only one more ‘notable’ quote from the CFs wherein 1 Tim. 5:21 is commented on at length; note the following:

>>It is, however, objected that other beings which are enumerated with the Father and the Son are certainly not always glorified together with them. The apostle, for instance, in his charge to Timothy, associates the angels with them in the words, " I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels." We are not for alienating the angels from the rest of creation, and yet, it is argued, we do not allow of their being reckoned with the Father and the Son. To this I reply, although the argument, so obviously absurd is it, does not really deserve a reply, that possibly before a mild and gentle judge, and especially before One who by His leniency to those arraigned before Him demonstrates the unimpeachable equity of His decisions, one might be willing to offer as witness even a fellow-slave ; but for a slave to be made free and called a son of God and quickened from death can only be brought about by Him who has acquired natural kinship with us, and has been changed from the rank of a slave. For how can we be made kin with God by one who is an alien? How can we be freed by one who is himself under the yoke of slavery? It follows that the mention of the Spirit and that of angels are not made under like conditions. The Spirit is called on as Lord of life, and the angels as allies of their fellow-slaves and faithful witnesses of the truth. It is customary for the saints to deliver the commandments of God in the presence of witnesses, as also the apostle himself says to Timothy, "The things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men;" and now he calls the angels to witness, for he knows that angels shall be present with the Lord when He shall come in the glory of His Father to judge the world in righteousness. For He says, "Whoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of Man also confess before the angels of God, but he that denieth Me before men shall be denied before the angels of God;" and Paul in another place says, "When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his angels." Thus he already testifies before the angels, preparing good proofs for himself at the great tribunal.>> (Basil, On The Holy Spirit, Chapter 13 (29) – NPNF Series II, 8.18, 19)

There is also an interesting, brief mention of “the elect angels”, in the writings of Gregory Nazianzen:

>>What need have I any more of speech? It is the time for teaching, not for controversy. I protest before God and the elect Angels, be thou baptized in this faith.>> (Oration On Holy Baptism, ch. 44 - NPNF Series II, 7.376)

Later today, I hope I can find the time to check my modern commentaries on 1 Timothy for some productive exegesis on verse 5:21, though it may be tomorrow before I can do so.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello again Errol,

I have been surveying the 41 commentaries on the Bible Hub site link—as well as the commentaries in my library that are not included in the HB collection—and have come away pretty much as disappointed as I was after my original study into this verse (over two decades ago).

Concerning the HB collection, I believe Alford’s commentary to be the most informative—see vol. 3, pages 353, 354 in the print edition. Of those not found in the HB collection, I can only recommend two: Lock’s, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Pastoral Epistles, p. 63 (link); and George W. Knight III's, NIGTC - The Pastoral Epistles, p. 238 (link).

What I found interesting in those two commentaries is notion that the ‘elect angles’ are, "chosen to share in the judgment". I cannot help but wonder if Justin had this in mind when he penned the controversial 1st Apology, ch. 6 passage.


Grace and peace,

David